81–90 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, acquiring ad companies.
Mozilla Foundation did not acquire an ad company, and none of their dollars can be legally used to acquire and ad company. Once again, HNers fail to understand the difference between Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation, and conflate all their criticisms.
Q: How many people are using a web browser on a daily basis worldwide as their main window to the collective infosphere? A: Billions. Q: What fraction of the corresponding GDP would it take to fund a serious browser-as-public-good initiative that would develop this technology to its full potential without the perverse constraints of adtech business models? A: 0.0001%? Too small to compute? The idea that critical comm…
Interesting thought experiment.
I think, the question can pretty much be answered with "whatever is necessary to fund a company, their personnel and keep them afloat and honest".
Not sure when and why Mozilla has deviated from that path/mantra. Did they get greedy? Corporate bloat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now. They mostly exist as a Google owned shell now...
> To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now. Ok, maybe they should update firefox's home page, then? Very first lines: > Get the browser that protects what's important > No shady privacy policies or back doors for advertisers. Just a lightning fast browser that doesn’t sell you out.
Q: How many people are using a web browser on a daily basis worldwide as their main window to the collective infosphere? A: Billions. Q: What fraction of the corresponding GDP would it take to fund a serious browser-as-public-good initiative that would develop this technology to its full potential without the perverse constraints of adtech business models? A: 0.0001%? Too small to compute? The idea that critical comm…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances
What incentivized Mozilla to do this? How does this get them more money? (I.e., who's paying M for this?)
This gives me impression like what happens to the nuclear weapon proliferation. At beginning, it is an arms race, between US and USSR, between users and advertisers. Either side thinks they can't survive without vanquishing the other. Eventually they realize it is stupid to continue, and reach a point to both step back. I think Mozilla is at the point where they realize it is no longer beneficial to continue the race…
sad for the content creators (I do actievely try to donate and subscribe to quality content when apt), but I simply don't tryst my privacy being preserved any longer. So opt out of this setting and keep Adblock extension on. The well has long been poisoned for me.
But I'm also in the minority and it seems there's still enough adrev going that I'm barely an atom in the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is like Wikipedia, where the vast majority of the funds they receive go to causes unrelated to development or maintenance of their core product (web browser or encyclopedia).
[flagged]
They apparently were under the impression early on that Mozilla Corporation would somehow actually make money from Firefox which would then fund the Mozilla Foundation's other projects. I doubt that they anticipated that nearly all of the money coming into Firefox would come from their primary competition and they'd wish they could allocate funds in the other direction, but here we are.
If you know so much more than the rest of us: Is there some important reason why they haven't fixed their structure already? The for-profit supposedly reinvests all its profits into the non-profit, so I'm unclear what purpose the distinction is serving at this juncture.
1. Visit about:config 2. Set dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false I've added the configuration value to the following page: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy/Privacy_Task_Force/firefox_... I'm not affiliated with Mozilla, but I do understand how wikis work. ;-)
> I'm not affiliated with Mozilla, but I do understand how wikis work. ;-) You don't seem to understand why this is problematic though, so I'll explain it to you: enabling tracking when you know that one of your selling points to your users is respect for privacy is a huge breach of trust.
It is obvious why Firefox does this though; they have no income otherwise like Google does. Firefox users somehow think that using is "supporting" Mozilla/Firefox, but it is not, and they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription free. Privacy-friendly ads are a reasonable way for Mozilla to survive long-term -- if they are indeed privacy-friendly. Ultimately you probably either need a clean-room NGO that…
You can't reasonably claim "they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription [fee]" when it is not even possible for a user to donate to the Firefox project specifically.
It is obvious why Firefox does this though; they have no income otherwise like Google does. Firefox users somehow think that using is "supporting" Mozilla/Firefox, but it is not, and they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription free. Privacy-friendly ads are a reasonable way for Mozilla to survive long-term -- if they are indeed privacy-friendly. Ultimately you probably either need a clean-room NGO that…
I pay for Orion through Kagi. I would gladly contribute to the salaries of developers to maintain the Firefox project.